Global Warming 'very likely' human made

[Goa]

Depends on the expert. But I'd always look at what their reasoning is and what their facts are. Also, take a close look at the other side's reasoning too. Some experts do their own work.

That's actual the reason why I have good confidence that the global warming theory is right: I have not yet found good arguments on the other side (and as a physics PhD student, I think I'm in a good position to decide what are "good arguments").

Outside of my fields, I've also been skeptical of experts.

A health challenge of authority is good. It keeps them honest.

I completely agree with you. But the problem is that a lot of people push it to far and confound being skeptical with being ignorant and use it as an easy excuse to refute experts based on their beliefs.
And by the way, this

Almost all scientists leading the world in this discussion are probably doing so for political or monetary reasons.

is just BS. Allmost all scientists could find a job in industry which pays a lot more, so they surely don't do research for monetary reasons, and why researchers in general may have a slight political bias to the left, you will find a lot of scientists which are politically right to, and in this case they agree on the issue (for the simple reason that it is a sientific, and not a political subject)

 

[BasketCase]

Sure it's a valid question. But it's like Heisenberg uncertainty, because there is no real way to determine N.

Of course there is--you simply need to know all the factors that influence N. Measure those factors with sufficient accuracy that statistical law gives you a good confidence rating. Add up all the results, and you have N.

My doubts about global warming therefore center (mostly) around two questions: whether we know all the factors, and whether or not we're measuring them accurately.

Since scientists still haven't found out what has caused many of the Earth's past environmental upheavals, the answer to the first one is clearly "no".

The answer to the second one is based on statistical rules. However, since we (for example) don't know the total amount of biomass on the planet at any given time, the answer to Number Two is "probably not".

is just BS. Allmost all scientists could find a job in industry which pays a lot more, so they surely don't do research for monetary reasons

You'd be surprised how much money there is to be made in environmental cleanup. Manufacturers of CO2 scrubbers stand poised to make a killing.

 

[Goa]

You'd be surprised how much money there is to be made in environmental cleanup. Manufacturers of CO2 scrubbers stand poised to make a killing.

And your point is?
That climate science is financed by eventual producers of future CO2 scrubbers???

 

[Thomas1]

Thomas1, good to see you weren't just spouting about chaotic systems. It seems you do know about them. But your knowledge of climate is a bit less studied.

Volcanic eruptions cause an increase in albedo, and so decrease atmospheric temperature.

*sigh* I just typed a long reply and I didn't stay logged in, so I lost it. I guess I'll have to remember to copy the post before hitting the submit. Btw, I only found this thread because I was playing CIV IV and was getting global warming to hit.

You're right that I didn't study climate. And you're right that I oversimplified volcanic eruptions. I didn't try to get into the change in chemical composition of the air or the reflection of heat from earth. I only mentioned the absorption from the sun.

My main focus on the study of chaos was with mechanical systems. I did go into neural networks, weather, climate, and even stock market when others wanted me to apply my research to theirs. Even with my study of chaos, it really wasn't as much geared toward mechanical systems but finding a way to make chaos useful. An example of a mechanical system, was studying detection of micro fractures in things like turbines. I traded in my reading of fantasy and science fiction for Physica D.

What I found the most useful in chaos was looking at what I had called, "the skeleton" of chaotic systems. Btw, I mentioned a differentiation between complex systems and chaotic systems. Actually, I should have mentioned that systems can sometimes enter a chaotic state with changes in parameters too. They can also exit chaotic states with changes in parameters.

Anyway, to move on. I'm skeptical because I see a lot of polical pressure to come up with a foregone conclusion. I've seen this first hand. I see climatologists who dissent and they are politically ostracized. Granted, they seem to be in the minority, but it makes me wonder what else we're not hearing. Also, when I hear the word, "probably" in a scientific statement, I tend to discount the statement. It's another key word I found when people were BSing.

There are a lot of politics in research. I ran into it firsthand. I've seen researchers trying to discredit other researchers because they wanted the funding even though they didn't know what they were talking about. Everyone wants government money. It isn't as much the money from companies that I see the dishonesty, it's the money from government grants. Companies usually want more results.

I gave up research long ago and am in computers now. It's actually a direct result of the research. I was writing all my programs because they didn't exist. When I wanted a career change, I could have switched to a physicist, mathematician, or programmer. I chose computers.

Ironically, it was with computers that I found a project I was working on and a project I was leading (well, leading from the respect of coming up with the solution), discussed on CSPAN. It's amazing the different slant that comes across when it becomes a political hotbed. Republicans blaming Democrats and Democrats blaming Republicans when in reality, the problem had long been identified and long been worked on. It's a little bit disconcerting to hear people try to throw money and resources at the project so they can get credit. Especially when more money won't really help. Makes me wonder about my tax dollars. (Btw, it's amazing how many people with PhD's in Physics that I've worked with in the computer industry).

For disclosure, I did vote for Bush the first time around. I did not vote for him the 2nd time around. The main reason I voted for Bush for his first run is because I did not see the Clinton Administration taking the Osama Bin Laden threat seriously. I don't really appreciate how Bush handled the threats either or how the country is spending like never before. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I really have no idea what party or who I'll vote for next election.

 

[Sidhe]

Aye you have something like a five minute time limit or something then it logs you out, it's very annoying but you get used to it.

 

[Goa]

Anyway, to move on. I'm skeptical because I see a lot of polical pressure to come up with a foregone conclusion. I've seen this first hand. I see climatologists who dissent and they are politically ostracized. Granted, they seem to be in the minority, but it makes me wonder what else we're not hearing.

I'm intersted in this one. In fact being a sceptical myself I've been looking for dissenting climatologists presenting scientifc valid arguments, but until today I'haven't found one with convincing arguments. Could you provide me some examples which you personally find convincing?

 

[History_Buff]

Of course there is--you simply need to know all the factors that influence N. Measure those factors with sufficient accuracy that statistical law gives you a good confidence rating. Add up all the results, and you have N.

My doubts about global warming therefore center (mostly) around two questions: whether we know all the factors, and whether or not we're measuring them accurately.

I smell a contradiction. You can't say "We just need to know all the factors, but unfortunately, we can't know all the factors" as a counter to my argument, since it's pretty much what I just said . . .

 

[Thomas1]

I'm intersted in this one. In fact being a sceptical myself I've been looking for dissenting climatologists presenting scientifc valid arguments, but until today I'haven't found one with convincing arguments. Could you provide me some examples which you personally find convincing?

Sure, but I won't go out of my way to provide too much because it is very readily available. For instance, you've probably heard of Bashkirtsev & Mashnich's wager that the earth will get cooler by 2013. You've also probably heard of Oregon state climatologist George Taylor who's about to lose his job because he's a skeptic.

As early as 1992, Richard S. Lindzen wrote about discrimination when he was a skeptic. (He was a skeptic before he received any money from oil companies...now, for disclosure, he does get some funding from them and has for awhile)

"... As most scientists concerned with climate, I was eager to stay out of what seemed like a public circus. But in the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity. In the spring of 1989 I was an invited participant at a global warming symposium at Tufts University. I was the only scientist among a panel of environmentalists. There were strident calls for immediate action and ample expressions of impatience with science. Claudine Schneider, then a congressman from Rhode Island, acknowledged that "scientists may disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying.'' It seemed clear to me that a very dangerous situation was arising, and the danger was not of "global warming'' itself. ..."

NASA’s data indicates that there appears to be no significant change in temperature trend since the early 20th century. There has been a temperature change since 1990 however. Prior to 1990, the Earth's surface was losing 2 to 3 percent of sunlight per year and since 1990, the Earth's surface has been getting brighter.

Timothy Ball wrote the article, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?" which you could search for on the internet easily.

I could post a list of many more. It's really not hard to find skeptics. You should also take a look at how many critics are often attempted to be silenced.

Anyway, I'm not saying there isn't Global Warming. I'm saying there are many opinions out there among scientists. It's also not just in the area of climatology. Climatologists have their specialities too. But there are people who study the solar activity and it's affect on Earth too. For instance, they are predicting there will be a cooling of Earth as the solar activity approaches it's low sometime during 2021-2026. This corresponds with another low when global cooling was observed in 1950-1970.

 

[Thomas1]

It's been fun, but I need to get some things done this weekend. Have a good weekend guys.

 

[BasketCase]

I smell a contradiction. You can't say "We just need to know all the factors, but unfortunately, we can't know all the factors" as a counter to my argument, since it's pretty much what I just said . . .

I can say that. And you know something? I DID.

Global warming is merely a mathematical equation: X + Y + Z + Q = T. Except, of course, that global warming is a lot more complex. In order to find T, you must know X, Y, Z, and Q. This cannot be changed. If you don't know ALL of the first four variables, you cannot calculate the fifth.

Do you disagree with this? Why?


As for not being able to know all the factors--the Uncertainty Principle covers that one. As does my personal experience in software development. Your code may actually be 100% bug-free--but there's no way to know it for sure.

Do you disagree with this? Why?


There's no contradiction in here. The two ideas are independent of each other. But then, since it leads to a conclusion that's very inconvenient for global warming alarmists.....then the idea is dangerous, and must be destroyed by any means necessary. Such as "finding" contradictions where there actually aren't any.

 

[BasketCase]

Assuming you do understand Chaotic systems, then you should be aware of how much more dangerous it is to mess with them.

Before human beings developed this neat thing called civilization, the rather chaotic system known as Earth was one where various species competed against each other for food and space, killed each other in order to survive, suffered completely random fluctuations in the food supply for all manner of reasons--and went extinct on a fairly regular basis.

If we humans had never developed civilization, the next Ice Age (assuming it hasn't already started!) would have us freezing our buns off and starving to death right now. That's what you get for not messing with the system--frostbite and forced dieting.


When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, global warming alarmists are worried about drastic changes that mess up our lives--freak weather patterns, crop failures, new deserts popping up. But what they don't realize is that, before humans became civilized, such chaos was the order of the day.

That's why we became civilized and started building cities. To eliminate that chaos from our lives. To gain a measure of order. To improve our standard of living. So, we HAVE to mess with the system. And this will become chillingly clear if and when that next Ice Age happens--either we take steps to keep our planet warm, or we will be frozen and starving.


Other threads have proposed other solutions to global warming. Here, I present a new solution: that we Humans take TOTAL control of the climate.

 

[Dovster]

I am spending next week in that famed old Southern city, Saint Louis. I understand that the daytime weather there has been in the 20's for the past month or so.

Could somebody please arrange to have some global warming there when I arrive?

(I imagine that upstate New York would also appreciate a bit of it right now.)

 

[Gothmog]

@Thomas1

I wont comment on the wager, other than to say I would take that bet too. It's just a bet, not a scientific publication.

George Taylor is not going to lose his job, and he is not what I would call a sceptic, i.e. he understands that greenhouse gasses are a problem. He is going to lose a meaningless title for political reasons. I think his 'skepticism' is on the order of not being a doom-sayer. The stance he got criticized for was that human have not been the dominant influence on climate over the last 50 years, not all that controversial a stance from a scientific point of view. What happened is he got swept up into the political play of the governor of OR.

Now Lindzen is a special case he wrote a book which contained some good science and some bad science (note: not a peer reviewed publication). He has made a career of it. His book has been picked over a number of times and I have nothing more to say about him unless you have a specific scientific point to discuss.

NASA data does indicate a significant change in temperature, I defy you to show me different. I suppose you're thinking of the satellite measurements? The problem there was worked out a number of years ago. The issue was that the satellite was combining stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures. The stratosphere has been cooling, in line with predictions of the effects of greenhouse gasses. They are the primary radiator in the stratosphere.

Timothy Ball is an Oil shill.

Now I'm not anti sceptic, not at all. There's plenty of disagreement in the scientific community. It's what we do. The thing is in science you need a mechanism. So for the solar activity issue, there is no mechanism. That is the amount of forcing in energetic terms is not enough to cause a cooling, it is small when compared to the effects of greenhouse gasses. Now there may be a feedback mechanism of some kind, but to my knowledge there is not one hypothesis that has stood up to scientific scrutiny (I already mentioned the low cloud top - high cloud top hypothesis which was the best of the bunch IMO).

So show me where a legitimate scientific hypothesis has been squelched. I just don't believe it. You are reacting to the politics, which I agree are a bit hyped; but the scientific literature is clean.

@Basketcase - nothing you say there is a problem with me. I know we discussed humans controlling climate on this forum a year or so ago. I was writing a grant on the topic at the time (I did not get it). But just so you know, if we are to take any control of the earth's climate it will be through the same climate models you are so distrustful of.

 

[refracted]

Other threads have proposed other solutions to global warming. Here, I present a new solution: that we Humans take TOTAL control of the climate.

That wouldn't put an end to all arguments, however. Instead of "Global warming is our fault" vs "Global warming is natural", we would have "The earth is too cold, turn the global thermostat up" vs "The earth is too hot, turn the global thermostat down"

 

[Gogf]

Other threads have proposed other solutions to global warming. Here, I present a new solution: that we Humans take TOTAL control of the climate.

And how do propose that we "take total control of the climate"?

 

[Narz]

And how do propose that we "take total control of the climate"?

Not possible. We can't even control mosquitos.

 

[Thomas1]

Now I'm not anti sceptic, not at all. There's plenty of disagreement in the scientific community. It's what we do. The thing is in science you need a mechanism. So for the solar activity issue, there is no mechanism. That is the amount of forcing in energetic terms is not enough to cause a cooling, it is small when compared to the effects of greenhouse gasses. Now there may be a feedback mechanism of some kind, but to my knowledge there is not one hypothesis that has stood up to scientific scrutiny (I already mentioned the low cloud top - high cloud top hypothesis which was the best of the bunch IMO).

Just a quick reply:

Assel, R., Cronk, K. and Norton, D. 2003. Recent trends in Laurentian Great Lakes ice cover. Climatic Change 57: 185-204.


Bashkirtsev, V.S. and Mashnich, G.P. 2003. Will we face global warming in the nearest future? Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 43: 124-127.

Chavez, F.P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S.E. and Niquen C., M. 2003. From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299: 217-221.

Chistyakov, V.F. 1996. On the structure of the secular cycles of solar activity. In: Solar Activity and Its Effect on the Earth (Chistyakov, V.F., Asst. Ed.), Dal'nauka, Vladivostok, Russia, pp. 98-105.

Chistyakov, V.F. 2000. On the sun's radius oscillations during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. In: Solar Activity and Its Effect on the Earth (Chistyakov, V.F., Asst. Ed.), Dal'nauka, Vladivostok, Russia, pp. 84-107.

Dergachev, V.A. and Raspopov, O.M. 2000. Long-term processes on the sun controlling trends in the solar irradiance and the earth's surface temperature. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 40: 9-14.

Freeland, H.J., Gatien, G., Huyer, A. and Smith, R.L. 2002. Cold halocline in the northern California Current: An invasion of subarctic water. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2002GL016663.

Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. 1991. Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science 254: 698-700.

Zherebtsov, G.A. and Kovalenko, V.A. 2000. Effect of solar activity on hydrometeorological characteristics in the Baikal region. Proceedings of the International Conference "Solar Activity and Its Terrestrial Manifestations," Irkutsk, Russia, p. 54.

And from today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist - Danish National Space Centre
Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change

 

[Thomas1]

Assuming you do understand Chaotic systems, then you should be aware of how much more dangerous it is to mess with them..

Before human beings developed this neat thing called civilization, the rather chaotic system known as Earth was one where various species competed against each other for food and space, killed ...

I guess we're back to the Chaos.... Actually BasketCase, you're responding to a statement that is actually false. The danger isn't in messing with a chaotic system. Chaos has it's bounds. The statement above suggests that you're on a periodic, predictable path, which by definition, you can't be because the slightest change puts you onto a different path. To control a chaotic system such that you are on a periodic path, you have to first understand the system and all the variables. Second, you have to constantly introduce changes so that you are closer to the periodic path. If you don't know where you are in the chaotic system, then you don't know 1) where you will be in the long term and 2) what a change will mean in the long term. You can then argue that it is more dangerous not to mess with a chaotic system if you know eventually it will be disasterous.

Maybe Gothmog meant the danger of introducing change such that you move from one chaotic system to a different one. Of course, you can also move from a chaotic system to a periodic system. I just don't like to nitpick, so I didn't bring this up before or facts like there being a lag time of the earth's feeling the solar effects. So we should have hit our peak from the peak solar activity either in Nov 2005 or Nov 2006 (would have to look it up again). Also, the 11 year cycle isn't only cycle the Sun and the Earth go through. It is well-known for instance that the Sun provides the heat of the Earth. I'm sure this was known before science was studied by Man.

Also, a mathematical chaotic system is different than usual use of the word chaos. Mathematical chaos is deterministic and thus orderly in some sense. It is an aperiodic system that is sensitive to initial conditions. Common use of the word chaos suggests complete disorder.

Anyway, Basketcase, I agree with you. I just decided to nitpick this just once Hope I'm forgiven

 

[Gothmog]

Thomas1,

Yeah, you listed some references. Most are irrelevant to our discussion other than to show that there are no scientific hypotheses being squelched. Solar effects are pretty well understood and included respectable in climate models.

Disclaimer: I actually work with a bunch of solar physicists. Mostly we study cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere or with satellites.

The only reference you provided that could be relevant is Lassen 91'. But you know that was 15 years ago, the hypothesis the put forward there has been investigated. As I mentioned the forcing isn't enough, in the absence of some type of feedback mechanism. None of which have stood up to scrutiny. That's just how science works. People are still looking for that mechanism though.

What I was trying to imply with my statement about Chaotic systems is that (as you say) by definition a chaotic system is deterministic but very sensitive to initial conditions. So for the earth system, I laid out how stable it has been on a million year time scale and especially important the few thousand year time scale (important to humans). If we actively perturb the systems we are effectively setting new initial conditions for future evolution of the system. There could also be external perturbations, but I am only addressing anthropogenic ones here.

Once again for solar activity we are at a local minimum in the 11 year cycle. Please look it up.

I'm not sure what 'lag' you mean, solar irradiance is absorbed mostly in the outer atmosphere and at the earth's surface. These happen essentially instantaneously by their nature. Perhaps you mean feedback mechanisms? I'd be happy to discuss any you would like to mention.

 

[Thomas1]

Thomas1,

Yeah, you listed some references. Most are irrelevant to our discussion other than to show that there are no scientific hypotheses being squelched. Solar effects are pretty well understood and included respectable in climate models.

Disclaimer: I actually work with a bunch of solar physicists. Mostly we study cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere or with satellites.

The articles when taken together show there is a connection between solar activity and global warming. It is not a constant. They also show that there is a lag time of about 3 years. There's also other cycles with the Sun and with the earth that affect warming.

The arrogance is to disregard other theories without investigating them thoroughly. Like, I said, I have no problem with CO2 emissions affecting climate change. I have a lot of problem with people disregarding all other valid theories. The amount of contribution of CO2 to global warming should still be up for debate and scientific exploration.

So those who refuse to listen to the skeptics, are doing an injustice to science. (Solar activity and Greenhouse gases are not the only theories btw)

If we're going to end up spending trillions of dollars to correct an environmental condition, then we should do it in an educated way. There are other problems that IMHO at this point deserve much more focus than CO2 emissions. I'm all for reducing emissions, but not to go overboard. Overpopulation, extinction, over fishing, habitat destruction, and dead zones in the oceans are a few problems that we know how to help correct, but we just don't do it.

BTW, I have worked with solar physicists also as well as climatologists to look for chaotic patterns. Even though it was an interesting experiment, there was not enough data.

You should start looking up other theories and keep your mind open. I think you are politically motivated if you refuse to do this. Let me turn the tables on you and have you give me evidence that the Sun does NOT affect the climate change on Earth. Can you do that? I am sure this was observed long before science was ever discovered. This is equivalent to your request of me.

Btw, do you know what your initial conditions lead to if climate change is a chaotic system? NO. If it has been stable in the past, it's no guarantee it's stable in the future. Divergence is one thing that will characterize a chaotic system. The only way to make it predictable is to perturb it back to another previous position. To change the atmospheric content back is only one of the changes that would be needed in that equation. It might be almost an insigificant part compared to solar activity or other theories the "skeptics' have.